Trial by media: evaluating the role of mainstream media and fact-checking agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author:

Chongloi Haoginlen

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the function of the media during the COVID-19 pandemic. It tries to understand how media corporations selectively polish a certain narrative against the other. It will also take into consideration the role of fact-checking agencies and its reliability in determining what is right and wrong. Design/methodology/approach This study uses qualitative methods and relies on secondary data available in academic domains. In this paper, a specific case related with the COVID-19 pandemic is taken up. Conflicting accounts of health professionals both in academic and industry are compared and analysed. Professional integrity of fact-checking agencies as well goes through scrutiny. Findings After conducting a critical analysis, it is observed that media houses have violated certain ethics while presenting news and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without any consideration of fair presentation, the mainstream media resorted to presenting vaccine hesitancy as conspiracy and deplatformed such voice from the media. This violates one’s freedom to free speech and expression. Research limitations/implications It is a viewpoint from the side of a free speech abolitionist. Practical implications Press will realize that it failed in a number of occasions to uphold and protect its ethical values. Originality/value A study questioning the role of media during the COVID-9 pandemic is rare. In this regard, adequate literature is always a difficulty considering the amount of censorship imposed by health agencies, academic institutions and the media. This particular study is built of limited yet reliable information made available by academicians and independent health professionals. As such, the value of work which focuses on the alternative perspectives is believed to add value to health professionals, policymakers, media professionals and the general population.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology,Health (social science)

Reference77 articles.

1. Online ‘anti-vax’ campaigns and COVID-19: censorship is not the solution;Public Health,2020

2. Banerjee, A. (2021), “Why so-called fact checker are a greater evil than random misinformation that they claim to fight”, available at: www.opindia.com/2021/06/why-so-called-fact-checkers-are-a-greater-evil-than-random-misinformation/

3. BBC (2020), “Coronavirus: Africa will not be testing ground for vaccine, says WHO”, available at: www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52192184

4. Bell, E. (2019), “The fact-check industry. Columbia journalism review”, available at: www.cjr.org/special_report/fact-check-industry-twitter.php

5. Bella, T. (2020), “A vaccine scientist’s discredited claims have bolstered a movement of misinformation”, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3